# Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what h

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Greatest I am, Mar 8, 2013.

1. ### Greatest I amValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,740
Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what he has taught man?

Does God the Father have any moral responsibility to his children?

I think so. God the Father’s first responsibility to his children is to insure that they live. God the Father does not do so. Is God the Father moral or immoral for this sin of omission?

Human Fathers have as their first moral responsibility the protection of their children and a strong duty to insure that they live. Our laws make parents morally and legally responsible for the wellbeing of their children. If God the Father were just one of many Gods in a God society that society would demand that he take responsibility in the same way human society has decided that a human child’s parent must take responsibilities.

I believe God the Father’s society, if they were real, would demand this of God as care/harm and reciprocity are the corner stones of all moral systems and because man, a moral creature, demands that of himself and others and that should be the universal standard.

The fact that God the Father punishes or rewards us seems to indicate that he at least thinks that he has some moral responsibility to his children. If not, he could not morally retain the right to punish or reward. That being the case, it would be immoral for God to passively and negligently allow any of his children to die or take any active part in killing them.

God is doing these immoral, unethical and satanic things constantly.

Man seems to have developed a better moral code than God the Father.

What a game for your God the Father to play!
Create a place for eternal bliss on earth and heaven as well as a place for eternal suffering or death. Then he creates beings that he loves dearly and watches over. And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering or death and which to cling to and love in the place of eternal bliss. Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible, moral and ethical to his children than God the Father is to his.

Is man more moral, ethical, responsible and loving than God the Father?

Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what he has taught man?

Should man adore God for teaching us what not to do by his immoral, unethical, irresponsible and unloving example?

Regards
DL

3. ### siledreRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
487
I never understood how we equate god with super morality or immorality, god is beyond a moral or immoral state, when you were a child did you concern yourself with creatures you might be crushing when you walked on the grass. I'm not saying god is a child and the comparison may be off key, I'm saying that in the grand scheme of things it could just be god isn't really even concerned with us right now. I think god set it all up so god wouldn't have to intercede for us or with us until we reach a state that we can communicate with god in a meaningful way.

5. ### river

Messages:
10,569
Now this statement is a cop-out

Are you gods lawyer ?

7. ### siledreRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
487
how is it a cop out, it's just an opinion and really, god doesn't need a lawyer.

8. ### Greatest I amValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,740
To communicate with God he would have to be here. He is not.
All we have is what is written by men and immoral men at that.

Regards
DL

9. ### jayleewWho CaresValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,309
Yes and no. It's really hard for all of mankind to be moral. Emotions, broken brains, and fallacies make the Earth too unstable to teach anyone anything. However, there are moral cues that God could stand to pick up on from us. It's a sad state of affairs, but we're all dysfunctional at teaching, God included (if he exists). And, we all learn in different ways. I believe this is the singular saving grace of religion, dysfunctional as those are. They still are able to guide us in morality, good and bad. But, there are plenty of other good books that could be used in the place of the Bible to teach morality. But, we need the community and acceptance for children to adopt the philosophies into their own lives.

Lately, my morality has been enhanced by books of fantasy and legend (other than the Bible). The heroes in magical lands face great evil and stories allow social issues to be framed in a unique perspective so that we can see evil and good more clearly.

10. ### Greatest I amValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,740
Your "God could stand to pick up on from us.", says it all and I agree.

Regards
DL

11. ### wellwisherBannedBanned

Messages:
5,160
Knowledge of good and evil or moral law was the tree preferred by Satan. Moral law (good and evil) was not God's first choice. In Genesis, God did not want to deal with morality (option in the garden) since it will never amount to peace or perfection; lament.

The problem with knowledge of good and evil or moral law, can be seen with the analogy of two magnetics. If we separate two magnetics we will create a potential. Lowest potential is when the two magnetics merge as one. The farther apart we pull the magnetics the higher the potential. As we polarize good and evil there is unconscious potential.

Within the magnetic potential, of the two separated magnets of good and evil, the result is a paradox. How do you remove the potential when the law says we need to keep the magnetics, separate via moral law? If we remove the law, we remove the potential (prohibition creates temptation). But in the short term, the magnets will accelerate toward each other until the potential is dissipated. This acceleration can look like the worse thing is happening and good and evil blur. To some this loss of clarity means we need to prevent this and maintain the potential or maybe separate it even more so they can't touch?

Moral law will maintain one in a state of suspension between the polarization; on the cross. This causes anguish. The flux will try to depotentiate, but law says you need to maintain the separation, resulting in a never ending flux. God, prefers you let the magnets go.; nailed the law of good and evil to the cross where is it will remain stuck.

For example, at one time witches were burnt at the stack. It was evil to be a witch, with the self righteous doing even more evil (murder) in the name of good and evil.

It works like this. The two magnetic of moral law were first separated into good and evil, thereby setting a potential. Since there was nothing naturally wrong with folk medicine, not everyone will buy into the collective polarization. Those who do buy in, place themselves in the flux of good and evil, until the magnetics need to combine within. They become unconsciously evil, to help lower the potential due to law. This may require burning innocent people in the name of good.

God is not there to constantly mop up after man made polarizations. God wanted the tree of life. The polarization potential of life, is not good and evil. These potential are morally neutral, like hunger. Within the flux is a dynamics that promotes life. The lowering of hunger potential leads to growth and something positive.

12. ### jayleewWho CaresValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,309
It is a difficult thing you are trying to frame. I'm not sure it can be done.

What's done is done, we have knowledge of good and evil and cannot go back so there's no point in stating intentions of God. So where do we go from here?

Using your analogy of magnets, there are two point where opposite poles no longer have potential: when they are together, or when they are far enough apart where they will not influence one another. The goal I have is to move North until North does not exist and South does not exist. We cannot go to the middle because we have the knowledge of good and evil. It isn't an option anymore. It's one direction or the other at this point if we want peace.

The reason we can't go to the middle is good and evil is relative, which makes it difficult to talk about. IOW, what is good and what is evil in a situation is circumstantial. Where the lines blur, there is always evil and good (depending on perspective AND circumstances) which is why it cannot be the destination when we have knowledge of good and evil.

So, now that we have knowledge, would you excuse God of its evil done to mankind?

Messages:
84
Loaded question. Man doesn't teach God.

I don't know. I'm not sure you can discuss God in such terms. If we say God is all-Good (omnibenevolent), then morality doesn't apply, since morality implies choice (a fundamental option of choosing good vs evil). If it appears to us that God is not fulfilling some human-defined moral responsibility (and thus choosing evil), perhaps God is not all-Good, or perhaps our moral definition is faulty, or perhaps we're missing information about God's actions. A fourth option is that there is no God, but if we're going to take that as the case, then we might as well end this discussion here.

How do you know God the Father's first responsibility to his children is to ensure that they live? I would posit that, that is not God's first responsibility. Furthermore, is it even a moral responsibility for God to do so, first or otherwise? I would posit that it isn't. Therefore, calling it a sin of omission on God's part, not being proven, is an assumption.

Human Fathers are not God. The way we define God is such that there is an infinite difference between being human and being God. Therefore, it is not necessarily appropriate to apply the same kinds of rules between the two. As for God being one of many gods in a god society, if that's the line you want to take, then I suppose you could say whatever you like about it. This isn't how God is defined in any of the major religions, so I suppose you're talking about your own kind of God. If that's the case, then have at it. Talk about this god however you like.

I reject your position that there is a "god society."

The fact that God punishes and rewards may seem to indicate moral responsibility, but it doesn't necessarily indicate moral responsibility. The way parents punish and reward their children as means for teaching, or influencing their children toward or away from particular behaviours isn't necessarily correct. Punishments and rewards, I would assert, should be the natural consequences of actions (ie, you win the race to the watering hole, you get to drink first, you stick your finger in an electrical socket, you get electricuted). Children can't see where their actions lead, and what the consequences will be. Even if you tell them, they forget, or don't believe it. Therefore, parents use punishments and rewards as preventative and conditional measures. But these are artificial. Getting a lollipop for going on the potty is an artificial reward. Getting a lollipop has nothing to do with going on the potty, except within the constructed framework of punishments and rewards that parents use to get their kids to do what they want. Going on the potty may be in the best interest of the child, but this method may set up in the child unrealistic expectations about reality.

I assert that the punishments and rewards that God gives are merely the natural consequences of the choices people make. I would also assert that much of what people attribute as God's actions, are not really God's actions at all(ie, a volcanic explosion that wipes out a city, or a period of rain after a long drought).

I disagree.

I disagree.

God doesn't play games, to the best of my knowledge, which I admit is terribly limited.

This is full of theological fallacies. God didn't create a place of eternal bliss and eternal suffering. Heaven and hell are not places. God also doesn't decide that anyone is "trash," nor throws them into eternal fire. I assert that God loves even those who are in hell. Furthermore, heaven and hell are natural consequences of choices. The choices can be simplified to one basic choice: God first, me second, or God second, me first. That's not always easy to see, but that's always the chocie. The eternal suffering of hell is the eternal separation from God, who is the source of all good. That separation occurs because of the choice, "me first." It's the same thing in a relationship between lovers. If a partner continually chooses to put himself before his spouse, the relationship will die, and the love and joy and happiness that could have been will be lost. And the selfish one may come to realize what is lost, and regret it forever. The same principle is at work here. Hell is the natural consequence of rejecting the loving relationship that God wants with us. Heaven is living in that relationship. A simple, hard rule about relationships: you cannot force your lover to love you. Neither can God.

No.

No.

Loaded question. I don't believe God's actions are immoral, unethical, irresponsible, and unloving. But yes, man should adore God.

14. ### kwhilbornBannedBanned

Messages:
2,088
To live without bad and evil would be a far worse existence than anything a devil could cook up.

Imagine how nice it feels to hit a home run. Now Imagine it from the pitchers viewpoint. Good and bad go hand in hand.

You also personify god in the OP.. What if god is simply a part of everything and more of a law of nature than some old guy giving lessons.

Personally; I don't buy into the ancient dogma professed by Popes and such, and think most religions are designed to collect money and amass real estate and wealth.

How many countries has the catholic church overthrown by force and deception? Rome? Germany? France? Spain? All of these and more. Killing many millions in their path and destroying countless volumes of scientific knowledge (heretic views of course).

I believe in god, but the OP is ridiculous in many ways.

15. ### Greatest I amValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,740

You do a lot of denying without offering an argument against.

Did you want to discuss morals or just deny everything and move on?

I cannot give a rebuttal against nothing.

Let me pick where you actually made a statement without argument and perhaps we can start there and deal with your other strait denials later.

Do stop running from argument though and give a decent rebuttal if you want to chat.

You indicate that we cannot judge God because we are so much more inferior than he is.

That is not what scriptures say. They say, as in Eden, that we can become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil and that our moral sense matches God's.

That is why scriptures also urge us to test all things. It tells us to judge what God does and not just blindly accept them as you seem to have done with your denials without arguments.

If you are serious at all then come back honestly and not just trying to deflect away while just denying.

Let me give you this well done link.
If you can get past your prejudices the way I had to and just absorb the words then I think you will agree with her and I.

Regards
DL

16. ### Greatest I amValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,740
Yet you do not offer an argument against what you say is ridiculous. You back bite and run.
Not a good debate tactic for an adult.

I too believe in a Godhead and like you have rejected the genocidal son murderer of the bible as unfit to follow.

I did personify the bible God. Why not?

Christians have and if I want to play their game I have to use their rules.

So yours was a cheap shot but then that is not surprising if all you planned on doing was back biting and running away without speaking of the immorality of God having his son murdered.

If not, come back and give a decent reply from a moral POV and we can have at it.

I am also curious as to what God you believe in and why. You show me yours and I will show you mine. Our Gods seem to have judged bible God with open eyes and might just get along.

Have a look at that clip above and speak to it if you like.

Regards
DL

Messages:
84
That's not true. The only outright denials I made, I made because I felt I had addressed the issue already. Except, I suppose in my first statement. However, your implication that men teach God is about as valid as my simple statement that man does not.

I made an argument regarding God and morality. Take another look, if you like.

True enough. I certainly wouldn't expect you to try.

I'm sorry, where did I indicate this?

Actually, that's what the serpent tells Eve, and it's soon after revealed to be a lie.

This is also untrue. Test all things yes, but to what standard is it referring? The test is to ensure that it is of God. In fact, the scriptures say do not put the Lord your God to test. Jesus, Himself, attests to that during his temptations in the desert.

I am serious, and I do try to conduct myself honestly. I'm not sure why you're ignoring what arguments I did make, and saying that I indicate things which I did not, but I assure you I'm not simply denying.

I haven't watched the link yet, as I'm not in a place that I can do that at the moment. When I do, though, I'll let you know what I think.

Messages:
84
So, I managed to watch it, where I am. Well, listen to it actually.

This is full of theological errors, and does not accurately depict the Christian outlook. At least, not every Christian outlook. I'll grant you that some Christians believe in the manner that is outlined in the video. But I would argue that those Christians are incorrect.

First, she states that "one of the central tenets of Christianity is that Jesus was God in the form of a man." While I can't ask this person what she meant by "form," I'd like to clarify that, for my part, and the part of the Catholic Church and other Christian groups, this tenet says that Jesus was fully human, not merely in the appearance of a man. Some consider it a niggling point, but being fully human means he experienced in the same way what we experience; pain, pleasure, sadness, joy, etc. Merely taking a human appearance doesn't necessarily grant this.

She says that "Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified in order to suffer the punishment for the sins of humanity, essentially taking our place." I'd like to refer back to my earlier post in which I indicate that a punishment is (or should be) the natural consequence of an action. Biblically speaking, the natural consequence of sin is death. That is recounted numerous times throughout the Bible. Sin is the separation of oneself from God, the source of life. Separating oneself from the source of life leads to death. Therefore, the natural consequence of sin is death.

You can certainly argue with the premises of this. You may posit that God isn't the source of life. Rather, food, sunlight, sleep, water, etc. are the sources of life. And even if you don't separate yourself from these, you're still going to die. Cell death occurs as part of nature. I certainly don't disagree with this.

However, I believe in a spiritual dimension, and that the spiritual dimension has real power in the physical dimension. It is upon this that the Christian position stands (or falls, I suppose, depending on your perspective). Sin causes spiritual death, and spiritual death leads to physical death. The argument goes that prior to sin, the human spirit had the power to sustain bodily life indefinitely, but that sin cuts the person off from the source of life (God) and causes spiritual death. Because the spirit and the body are not separate, but one, spiritual death leads to physical death. Thus, the Bible says that it was through the sin of Adam that death entered the world.

All of that, however, depends on whether you believe in a spiritual dimension. I don't know if you do or not, but there it is.

Anyway, regarding her statement, "essentially taking our place," that's not technically correct, but I'll get back to this.

She goes on to say that, 'this means that regardless of what we do, we all have an opportunity to go to heaven, provided that we believe in Jesus.' I know that there are many Christian groups who believe this, but it's not really correct. To understand why this is not exactly correct, just take a look at what Jesus Himself says. Before that, though, I'd like to note that the passages that are used to support "belief only" use the word "faith." But what is faith? People often associate faith with blind belief, which is not only false, it's absurd. A lover doesn't have blind belief in his/her spouse. The faith that lovers have for each other is based upon the character of the person they're putting their faith in. To put your faith in your partner is to suppose that your partner is a faithful person. Does he/she live up to his/her word? Does he lie or cheat? Does she manipulate or coerse? To be clear, faith a relationship word. Faith as an action is a love action. A faithful spouse is faithful out of love. Faith out of duty, or fear of human scorn, or some other reason, isn't really faith. It involves trust, but is not itself trust. It comes out of love, but is not love itself. It is a self-sacrificial way of living in love with your partner, and believing that your partner is living the same way toward you.

Now let's go back to what Jesus has to say. He says (and I'm paraphrasing here), "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." Well, He commanded quite a few things. "Love God with all you are, and love your neighbors as yourself." "Go out and teach all nations, baptizing them in God's name." "Take this bread and eat, take this wup and drink, do this in memory of me."

So, having Faith in Jesus, which should consitute a way of living in love with Him, according to Him, means doing a whole lot more than simply having an intellectual, or heartfelt belief in Him.

She finishes that little bit with "because he nullified the penalty for our sins." Again, this isn't quite accurate. He nullified the penalty of original sin. Individual sins are a different matter. His sacrifice is enough to nullify our individual sins, provided that we unite our own sacrifices to His. But let's be clear, we still have to do our part to pay our own penalties. St Paul references this when He talks about what is lacking in Christ's sacrifice.

She goes on to talk about the nonsensicality of someone being punished for the sins of others as a valid form of justice. Natural justice, which may be stated simply as "an eye for an eye," is a concept not missing from the Bible. That ideal came along with Abraham out of Babylon (Abraham was from Ur), where the prevailing law was the Code of Hammurabi. Indeed, this justice was the prevalent form of justice that the Jews had in relationship to God before the Messiah. That is, if you were wicked, your life was cursed. If you were good, your life was blessed. This story of Job ran counter to this, and you can see in that story this prevailing sense of justice, as those around Job accused him of sinning, and thus receiving curses from God. But Job foreshadows Christ, in that despite the apparent curse of God, and God's forsaking him, he remains faithful. What we learn in Christ, and Job, is that, that old rule doesn't necessarily apply. What we find, especially in Christ, is that the blessings and curses of God are predominately spiritual in nature, rather than physical. In the old model, the canundrum of the wealthy wicked person just wouldn't have an answer.

It isn't that eye for an eye isn't true. Indeed, that's exactly why Christ had to come. Humanity (as a whole, but through Adam) had incurred an impossible debt to repay. Justice demaded that it had to be paid. In order to fulfill the demands of justice, God lovingly stepped forward to pay it. But the debt had to be paid by humanity. Therefore, He became a man. Not an image, nor an avater, but a real flesh and blood man.

But a big part of her objection is the idea that one person can pay the debts of another. Quickly considering a simple vein, if you were put in jail and you could get out by posting a $500.00 bail, but didn't have the money, would you ask a friend, or a relative to help you out? There is no requirement on behalf of your friend to help out, but it's certainly generous if he does so. We consider God's actions to be generous and loving in this sense. However, this doesn't really answer the deeper philosophical question of whether a person can validly pay for the debt of another, or if that debt is merely transferred to the payee. Christ's sacrifice is said to be a free gift (ie, the debt isn't transferred), but is it valid? It rests on the idea of communal guilt. This was commonly understood by Jews in ancient times, but many Christians today even find this concept hard to accept. I know that I myself thought the idea wasn't true for a long time. But do we have any evidence that communal guilt is a real thing? I think most people, if they found out that Hitlar was a close relative, or great grandparent of theirs would feel some level of embarrassment, or shame at the relation. Indeed, I think most Germans feel ashamed of that time in their history. Germans today aren't the ones who committed those atrocities, yet they still feel some shame regarding it. I'm a Canadian, and even though I don't identify with those who settled in these lands centuries ago (especially considering my grandparents all immigrated here within the last century), I am still treated by many Natives as part of the White Man who stole their lands. This doesn't mean communal guilt is valid, but I think that the average person unconsciously adheres in small ways to the principle. Using broader, more accepted principles, we can draw conclusions that tend in the direction of communal guilt. For example, we can take the butterfly effect with regards to physics, seeing that a small change here on earth can have at least some small impact on the moon. Perhaps the impact is miniscule to the point of being nearly unmeasurable, but the impact is still real. Everything in the universe affects everything else in some small way. Likewise, we can consider this to be true in the spiritual world. In fact, we do. If a man commits a murder, and I stand by and watch, making no effort to stop it, I am also guilty of the murder. Not to the same degree, nor in the same way, but I share in the crime nonetheless. Not only do I share in the guilt of it, but I also share in the effects and consequences of it. Perhaps this is not exactly proof that communal guilt is real, but it is evidence. It may not even be the best evidence, but it is evidence. So if we take communal guilt, which is the basis of Original Sin, as true, and the sin of one can be impugned to many, then so too can the payment of one be meritted to many. She then goes on with an example of an innocent man put to death for murder, and then the real murderer is found, and that this situation would be horrifying. This situation is horrifying, but that's not a proper analogy of Christ's sacrifice. The real murderer was known before Christ was put to death. The murderer was in jail for life, without any hope of freedom. Jesus freely offered his life for the life and freedom of the murderer. That is a more correct analogy. Her statement, then, that God's sense of justice is insane and less developed than our own, based on the analogy he provided, is incorrect. She then talks about Christ's sacrifice as meaningless due to His resurrection. This idea stems from the idea of ultimate oblivion in death. Almost nobody in the ancient world, and even in the millenia leading up to the past couple of hundred years, believed in oblivion after death. Nearly everyone believed in some kind of afterlife, whether rebirth as an animal, or god, or release from the body as a pure spirit and entry into a spirit heaven or hell, etc. The Jews believed in life after death, and resurrection. Egyptians believed you could take your possessions with you into the afterlife. Hindus and Buddhists believed your soul migrated to a new body after death. The Greeks had Hades and Mt. Olympus. Yet, did that diminish the pain and horror of death in any way to any of these cultures? Was not a heroic sacrifice still just that to these people? Of course! Perhaps compared with the idea of total oblivion, it doesn't mean the same thing, but oblivion was foreign to almost everyone in the past, and death remained a terrible enemy. Christ's death and resurrection were two separate events, and one does not negate the meaning and reality of the other. Another question she poses is "couldn't God just forgive our sins?" The answer is no, because justice demands payment for offenses made. Justice isn't just a tool to allow for harmonious living. It's an essential part of God's nature. God could as easily ignore just as you could ignore breathing. Everything else she says is derived from what I've already addressed, so I think I'll leave off there. 19. ### Greatest I amValued Senior Member Messages: 3,740 IfIonlyhadabrain. I will take you at face value that you wish a decent debate. I went back to your first and will work my way down. The fact that you did not use any of the usual Christian expletives on me tells me we just might be able to have a decent discussion if we can both refrain from petty replies and dialog around morality without getting too far off track. ------------------- Originally Posted by Greatest I am. Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what he has taught man? Your reply. Loaded question. Man doesn't teach God. Rebuttal GIA If God taught man then man would conform to God’s teachings and laws. We do not and ignore many of his laws. I E, we have not stoned unruly children or fornicators for some time now. Since we have discarded many of God’s laws, we are in effect teaching him that his laws are not acceptable to civilized nations. Do you have an argument showing the reverse or do you concede my point of logic? --------------------------- Originally Posted by Greatest I am Does God the Father have any moral responsibility to his children? Your reply. I don't know. Rebuttal GIA As above so below. On earth as in heaven. If men have such a responsibility then so does God. God is said to love us and love, like faith, must have works and deeds. So says James about faith and I say about love. What would your wife and family think of your love if you never showed it somehow? Not much right? The same applies to God. ----------------------------- Your reply. I'm not sure you can discuss God in such terms. Rebuttal GIA Yes we can because Revelation says he will return to rule. A ruler has a responsibility to his people. Do you expect something from your President? Of course you do. -------------------------- Your reply If we say God is all-Good (omnibenevolent), then morality doesn't apply, since morality implies choice (a fundamental option of choosing good vs evil) Rebuttal GIA If you say that God has no choice then you are saying that he has a limitation and is not omnipotent. I protest as you are cherry picking from the attributes given to him in scriptures and accepting those you can use while denying me those I can use. Further, I would argue that God can do the evil thing and is not all good as in the story of Job, he admits to Satan moving him to destroy Job without cause. That is quite evil. Do you have an argument to refute this? -------------------------- Your reply. If it appears to us that God is not fulfilling some human-defined moral responsibility (and thus choosing evil), perhaps God is not all-Good, or perhaps our moral definition is faulty, or perhaps we're missing information about God's actions. A fourth option is that there is no God, but if we're going to take that as the case, then we might as well end this discussion here. Rebuttal GIA I agree with your last. To your first, pick your option or we will go all over the place. There are tons of options and I will not argue in many different directions. There is no profit in that. Pick your poison and go with it. Our moral definitions cannot be too far off the mark viv a vis God as we are told in Genesis 3 that we share his moral sense. 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: --------------------------- Originally Posted by Greatest I am I think so. God the Father’s first responsibility to his children is to insure that they live. God the Father does not do so. Is God the Father moral or immoral for this sin of omission? Your reply. How do you know God the Father's first responsibility to his children is to ensure that they live? Rebuttal GIA I can know this because if he has any responsibilities to execute toward his children they must be alive to enjoy them. If dead, he cannot. Do you have children? What was your wife do first after giving life? She insured that it lived by feeding it. That was her first responsibility and the same applies to God. I will have your argument against both God and your wife. ------------------------------- Your reply. How do you know God the Father's first responsibility to his children is to ensure that they live? Rebuttal GIA See above. If dead then God can do nothing for it. ---------------------------- Your reply I would posit that, that is not God's first responsibility. Rebuttal GIA Positing without an argument is not kosher. ----------------------------- Your reply Furthermore, is it even a moral responsibility for God to do so, first or otherwise? Rebuttal GIA God is said to reward and punish. I submit that if he did not think he had some kind or responsibility then he would not. If you have no children then think of your parents. Did they punish and reward you? Yes they did. If you do have children then you are motivated to do so for the same reason. Responsibly. Right? ------------------------------- Your reply I would posit that it isn't. Rebuttal GIA Positing without an argument is not kosher. ------------------------------ Your reply Therefore, calling it a sin of omission on God's part, not being proven, is an assumption. Rebuttal GIA God’s first children were Adam and Eve. They died. If you agreed above on responsibility for both God and your wife, then ignore this. If not and you think that God letting them die due to his locking away the tree of life is moral then please argue the morality of letting children die when they can be saved. ----------------------------------- Originally Posted by Greatest I am Human Fathers have as their first moral responsibility the protection of their children and a strong duty to insure that they live. Our laws make parents morally and legally responsible for the wellbeing of their children. If God the Father were just one of many Gods in a God society that society would demand that he take responsibility in the same way human society has decided that a human child’s parent must take responsibilities. Your reply. Human Fathers are not God. The way we define God is such that there is an infinite difference between being human and being God. Therefore, it is not necessarily appropriate to apply the same kinds of rules between the two. As for God being one of many gods in a god society, if that's the line you want to take, then I suppose you could say whatever you like about it. This isn't how God is defined in any of the major religions, so I suppose you're talking about your own kind of God. If that's the case, then have at it. Talk about this god however you like. Rebuttal GIA True that we are defined differently but we can compare the moral actions of both and decide which we think is best. As above so below says that it is necessarily and appropriate to apply the same kinds of rules between the two. ----------------------------- Originally Posted by Greatest I am I believe God the Father’s society, if they were real, would demand this of God as care/harm and reciprocity are the corner stones of all moral systems and because man, a moral creature, demands that of himself and others and that should be the universal standard. Your reply I reject your position that there is a "god society." Rebuttal GIA No problem. I did offer it as fantasy. Do you deny that do unto others should be a universal standard or was Jesus wrong in making it an important commandment? If it is moral and good as God is supposed to be, then was God evil for not doing unto his children? I think it is unworkable but that does not matter as it is to you to defend. ------------------------------------- I will ignore for now the rest of you first post as it get preachy and reactive with no real substance. Just my opinion that and I am sure you do not agree. If you wish to bring up something, I am there for that. I did pull this below thought. Your reply This is full of theological fallacies. God didn't create a place of eternal bliss and eternal suffering. Heaven and hell are not places. God also doesn't decide that anyone is "trash," nor throws them into eternal fire. I assert that God loves even those who are in hell. Rebuttal GIA You first deny hell and then refer to it and that is why I ignored the rest. I assume, yes assumed, that you were off on a rant and it sounded that way and since your logic seemed off at the start I thought we should clear that up first. -------------------------------- On to your second post. Again I will ignore the reactivity for the hope of a good dialog. Originally Posted by Greatest I am That is not what scriptures say. They say, as in Eden, that we can become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil and that our moral sense matches God's. Your reply Actually, that's what the serpent tells Eve, and it's soon after revealed to be a lie. Rebuttal GIA I gave you a Gen 3; 22quote above where he confirms what I stated. Please get your quote that reveals this to be a lie or recant. ------------------------------- Originally Posted by Greatest I am That is why scriptures also urge us to test all things. It tells us to judge what God does and not just blindly accept them as you seem to have done with your denials without arguments. Your reply This is also untrue. Test all things yes, but to what standard is it referring? Rebuttal GIA There is only one standard we can use. Man’s. Do you know of another standard we can use? You can say God’s but there is much ambiguity and contradictions in scriptures and if God’s word says for us to test then we must test by whatever standard we can muster. For here, there is only your mind and mine so our standard is the only standard we have. Your reply The test is to ensure that it is of God. In fact, the scriptures say do not put the Lord your God to test. Jesus, Himself, attests to that during his temptations in the desert Rebuttal GIA You have confused me her. Ensure that what is of God? You also say that scriptures say to not put God to the test when I just quoted test all things. All includes God. All but God would exclude him. As to your last, did you mean temp and not test? If we are all subject to scriptures and testing then Satan would be as well unless you have something that has scriptures exempting certain entities. If so, please provide the quote. I have to knock off for now and will reply to your last on that link tomorrow. I did take a quick peek and it is really going to be a pain in the ass replying because of the way you answered. Do not be surprised if I ignore some and just put answers in to main parts. Unlike your last two, I will not return to it after my initial response. Time is precious and I type with two fingers. I see you do not so please KIS. Regards DL 20. ### Greatest I amValued Senior Member Messages: 3,740 IfIonlyhadabrain You show much good reasoning in all of your post. I will speak to some but since most of it does not include any mention of the moral aspects (our focus) that we are here to discuss, I have to ignore your good reasoning as it is superfluous even if correct as much of it is. You said Therefore, the natural consequence of sin is death. Reply GIA This cannot be true. Have you sinned? Are you dead? I need say no more. Recant please. ----------------------------- You said Cell death occurs as part of nature. I certainly don't disagree with this. Reply GIA This refutes your statement above. Life leads to death. Sin does not. Jesus died. Did Jesus sin? I think he did and scriptures say he did but most do not believe that interpretation of scripture. We will not argue this as it is off topic. ------------------------- You said Thus, the Bible says that it was through the sin of Adam that death entered the world. Reply GIA Not if God sinned by planning the murder of his son beforehand. We have yet to argue this to a conclusion. Further, Satan was already a sinner and his deception of Eve, a sin, came before Adams so on the face of it, your statement is not correct. -------------------------- You said "an eye for an eye," is a concept not missing from the Bible. Reply GIA True. A concept that God’s justice exceeds by a long shot showing how immoral it is. God tends to kill for many minor infractions. Even thought sins. This is unjust by any moral measure except God’s. One of the lessons we teach God and why he should adore us and not us adore him. ------------------------- You spoke of the Job story where God admits in the script that Satan moved him to destroy Job without cause. This is unjust and another reason God should bow to man, adore us and do as we say. We deserve kudos for recognizing injustice while God should hang for killing without cause. If you want to argue this issue I will link you to an O P I have on it. ------------------------------ You said God lovingly stepped forward to pay it. Reply GIA Most Christians have a different mental picture of Jesus and God. God the Father did not step up. He stepped back like a coward. Jesus said, my Father who sent me. He did not voluntarily step up. He was ordered or sent. God was a coward here as he set the conditions of sacrifice then did not have the stones to step up himself and sent an innocent man, Jesus, to needlessly die. ---------------------------------- You said But a big part of her objection is the idea that one person can pay the debts of another. Quickly considering a simple vein, if you were put in jail and you could get out by posting a$500.00 bail, but didn't have the money, would you ask a friend, or a relative to help you out? There is no requirement on behalf of your friend to help out, but it's certainly generous if he does so.

True but bail is returned. Perhaps you meant a fine.
You chose a nice simple scenario. What if the penalty or fine is jail for 20 years?

A real good friend might still do as you say but is that justice?

Let’s say the crime was rape of a woman by her neighbor.
Would the victim think that justice was done when she returned home after the trial and had to live with her rapist next door while some innocent stranger to her was in jail?

God had to learn that this was unjust from man who punishes the guilty instead of the innocent.

---------------------------

Me too.

--------------------------

You said
So if we take communal guilt, which is the basis of Original Sin, as true, and the sin of one can be impugned to many, then so too can the payment of one be merited to many.

We are all a part of the problems on earth but that does not absolve those who directly cause the problem. We all contribute to murder but only the killer should be punished or we should all go to jail if actual guilt is given to the masses. Society knows this and that is why we base our law on an eye for and eye but then apply our guilt in a form of mercy by taking less than an eye for an eye.

Our system is thus better than God’s and he has learned this from man and will bow down to us as he should.

----------------------------

You said
This situation is horrifying, but that's not a proper analogy of Christ's sacrifice. The real murderer was known before Christ was put to death. The murderer was in jail for life, without any hope of freedom. Jesus freely offered his life for the life and freedom of the murderer. That is a more correct analogy. Her statement, then, that God's sense of justice is insane and less developed than our own, based on the analogy he provided, is incorrect.

I disagree and offer the rape case analogy above.

Further. If a freed murderer who had killed your wife and child moved in next door, would you think justice done as your right to closure is never given?

Would you and your other child, if you had two, ever be comfortable while seeing the murderer of your family sipping bear and tanning his miserable hide in the sun?

Would you think that the justice system that allowed such was moral?

One for you as man. Zero for God who had to learn from you this time.

Ata boy. Have God bow to you on this one.
---------------------------------

You said
Another question she poses is "couldn't God just forgive our sins?" The answer is no, because justice demands payment for offenses made.

I agree.
But no offence calls for a barbaric and uncivilized blood sacrifice of an innocent victim as clearly shows in scriptures.

Unless you wish to ignore many of God’s statements and the bible.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Even some of your own answer that I forecasted above show a better moral sense than what God showed my friend.
Step up and take a bow and recognize that God is pleased to learn a better way and should adore you for teaching him.

Regards
DL

21. ### kwhilbornBannedBanned

Messages:
2,088
I think personifying god is ridiculous. I think it is as ridiculous when the Catholics do it.

However I will say that both the Hindus and the greeks personified god, yet they have different gods for different things which to me is more valid.

For an all knowing god to exist in the deepest reaches of the ocean or space we must be dealing with an all pervading collective consciousness. How else could these be explained?

All religions require prayer.
All religions require belief that the prayer will be answered.
All religions require thankfulness.

So the common parts of religion seem to have 3 basic precepts.

Personifying a Hindu or Greek deity is more of a form of asking/praying than actual personification. If they worship or sacrifice or pray to their god of health then it is to help someone sick. The Christians just have the one god who has no specific skill set.

I Think god is "All that is plus a bit more". So I think "god sees every sparrow that falls in the forest because god is every sparrow that falls in the forest".

So yes. I do think quoting the bible or some other contrived renditions of gods word is ridiculous. I have outlined my reasoning.

Many scientists feel all matter is connected. If we are all one, then a collective consciousness is also a possibility. If this collective consciousness is a mass great beyond imagining then the idea of a controlling entity is not as far fetched.

What existed before the big bang?

What lies beyond space as we know it?

HONESTLY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. They are very deep and at the root of our dilemma.

My explanation for everything is that there was once a vast emptiness in space that was somehow conscious with a pre collective consciousness that did not consist of others. As this entity learned to twist space for cause/effect over time Matter was born and life itself was an opportunity for this lonesome entity to experience touch,hunger,food,pain,sadness,anger,love,joy,romance, and everything we experience is shared to this entity. I believe this entity wants us to have more good feelings than bad feelings and will help us when we ask. So pray, issue intent, have faith, and be thankful over the tiniest of desires. It is not selfish to improve your experience.

22. ### Greatest I amValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,740
A better way of thinking than Christians.

To your two questions. Who cares. Knowing would just add to history and that would not effect the happiness factor one bit.

To personification.

As a Gnostic Christian, I agree that God is that which we are so we basically agree on his description but not quite.
You give it more than I can because of my apotheosis.

Why then would you say that we should not give it a sex, gender or personify it?

To women, God will be a woman. To men, God will be a man.

To the religions, as it was in the distant past, God was depicted as androgynous. Even the Jewish God was androgynous although Christians screwed that up with their foolish Trinity concept.

If God is to be our perfect example that we are to emulate, then it is quite healthy to humanize it.
I know God is an ( it ) thanks to my apotheosis but I still have a hard time thinking of the Godhead as an it and tend to fall into a personification mode when talking of or thinking of it.

Further, almost all religions do so so it is damned near a conditioned reflex.

You are a man. Don't you say to your car on those cold winter mornings; come on baby, start.
I do. My car is personalized as a she. So is yours I will wager.

Regards
DL

23. ### SciWriterValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,015
It's 'God', else it is a use-mention error, but, yes, humans have outdone 'God' (the concept). Similarly, any History of God is not correct; should be History of 'God'. No need to mention something only self-referred to as having an actual usage.